Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382470 > unrolled thread

Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments GSS <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 09:49 -0700
    Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 09:51 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 03:57 +0200
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 19:53 -0700
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:48 -0700
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 00:04 -0500
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:24 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 09:59 +0200
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 04:59 +0200
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 20:26 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 21:08 -0700
              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 22:54 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-01 17:35 -0700
                  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-02 21:47 +0200
                    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:43 -0500
                      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:30 +0200
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:21 -0500
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 09:16 -0500
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 07:41 -0700
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:48 +0200
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 15:01 -0700
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:14 -0500
                    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 14:35 -0700
                      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:16 +0200
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 22:13 -0700
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-06 06:47 +0200
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-05 22:20 -0700
                              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-08 08:04 +0200
                                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-08 06:44 -0700
                                  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-09 04:17 +0200
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-30 18:15 +1000
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:05 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 15:50 +0200
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 06:58 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments xxein1@att.net - 2016-04-30 19:56 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:49 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:58 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 17:02 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:25 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 22:55 -0500
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:30 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:41 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-06 15:28 +1000
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:12 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#382470 — Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments

The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) is often regarded as the most famous failed experiment to date that provided the crucial evidence against the ether theory and laid the foundation for Einstein's theory of Relativity. As Michelson and Morley’s experiment affected theoretical physics more than perhaps any experiments since Galileo and Newton, its results have been analyzed with the utmost care and the experiment itself has been replicated many times, establishing the 'null' result. The null result of Michelson-Morley experiment inadvertently turned out to be a pivotal turning point, the trigger for a paradigm shift in modern physics. This paradigm shift discarded the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time and pushed the fundamental physics into the realm of abstract mathematical models.

My latest paper on the subject has been recently published in a peer-reviewed international journal 'Applied Physics Research'.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v8n3p45

Abstract: The null result of Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) laid the foundation of Relativity and rejected the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time. Logically the null result of any experiment cannot be used to reject the hypothesis under test because the null result could also be caused by invalidity of any of the associated assumptions. The basic design of MMX involves an implicit assumption that changes in the photon flight time in axial and transverse beams, induced by the absolute motion of the setup, can be directly correlated with the corresponding changes in the phase of two beams at the exit end of the beam splitter. We show in this paper that this assumed correlation is fundamentally wrong. It is true that the flight time of a photon between two fixed points on the experimental setup does change with absolute motion of the setup and this has been correctly modeled in the MMX design. The instantaneous phase difference in the light beam, between same two points, does not change with absolute motion of the setup. In the MMX design, phase difference between two fixed points on the setup has been calculated on the basis of time interval alone, without taking into account the shift in corresponding positions on the wave due to the absolute motion of the setup. All modern MMX type experiments with electromagnetic resonators are based on erroneous assumption that the resonant frequency ν is proportional to the relative light speed (c±v) rather than the absolute light speed c.
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/download/58593/31723

Additional animations (from the web) of wave propagation:
http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/ClassMechanics/TravelWaves/TravelWaves.html
http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/wave-x-t/wave-x-t.html

The original MMX was based on the motion induced change in photon flight time between two fixed points on the hardware setup. This change in photon flight time over two perpendicular arms of the setup was quantitatively related to the absolute velocity of the setup. However, this time difference being of the order of a fraction of a femtosecond, could not be directly measured with available technology at that time. If Michelson and Morley could measure this minute time difference, they would have obtained a positive result and obviated the necessity of propounding the Relativity theory. By attempting to measure this minute time difference through erroneous correlation with phase changes across the two beams they gave way to the famous null result with serious repercussions. Unfortunately, all subsequent MMX type experiments continued to search for absolute motion induced shifts in phase or frequency of light waves with ever increasing sophistication but no one attempted to measure the absolute motion induced change in photon flight time.

With current technological advancements in atomic time measurements and pulsed lasers, modern MMX type experiments based on absolute motion induced change in light pulse propagation time across two perpendicular arms on the surface of earth, can be easily planned and conducted.  Each set of the test equipment required for conducting such absolute motion tests includes a solid state pulsed laser with picoseconds pulse width and single shot option, laser detector with focusing optics, Cesium atomic clock with picoseconds resolution, high precision event timer and data acquisition computer. It is quite possible that the original idea conceived by Michelson in 1880 to measure the absolute velocity of earth by optical means, may be successfully completed now, if the mainstream scientific community gets motivated to do it.
	
G S Sandhu	

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#382471 — Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu is back

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:49:32 AM UTC-7, GSS wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

Fuck off, nutter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382480

Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. I predict a 4.9 meter per second difference in light speed, even for a small laboratory apparatus. That is the speed of space, S.

S = V rho R / (3 m 5.13ns)

V is proton volume 3.6 x 10^-45 meter^3

rho is mass density of Earth

R is Radius

m is proton mass

5.131534 nanoseconds is The Universal Constant for the Conservation of Continuum

Alan Folmsbee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382503

Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. I predict a 4.9 meter per second difference in light speed, even for a small laboratory apparatus. That is the speed of space, S.
>
> S = V rho R / (3 m 5.13ns)
>
> V is proton volume 3.6 x 10^-45 meter^3
>
> rho is mass density of Earth
>
> R is Radius
>
> m is proton mass
>
> 5.131534 nanoseconds is The Universal Constant for the Conservation of Continuum

Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do 
agree about your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.

Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E


So, what should your calculation mean and what is the reason to use 
these particular values?


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382504

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:57:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> > Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. I predict a 4.9 meter per second difference in light speed, even for a small laboratory apparatus. That is the speed of space, S.
> >
> > S = V rho R / (3 m 5.13ns)
> >
> > V is proton volume 3.6 x 10^-45 meter^3
> >
> > rho is mass density of Earth
> >
> > R is Radius
> >
> > m is proton mass
> >
> > 5.131534 nanoseconds is The Universal Constant for the Conservation of Continuum
> 
> Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do 
> agree about your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.
> 
> Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
> 
> 
> So, what should your calculation mean and what is the reason to use 
> these particular values?
> 
> 
> TH

Grusenik is an idiot, the "effect" he measured is the length variation of gis interferometer arm. This is why such an experiment is an imbecility to start with. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382508

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> > Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. I predict a 4.9 meter per second difference in light speed, even for a small laboratory apparatus. That is the speed of space, S.
> >
> > S = V rho R / (3 m 5.13ns)
> >
> > V is proton volume 3.6 x 10^-45 meter^3
> >
> > rho is mass density of Earth
> >
> > R is Radius
> >
> > m is proton mass
> >
> > 5.131534 nanoseconds is The Universal Constant for the Conservation of Continuum
> 
> Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do 
> agree about your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.
> 
> Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
> 
> 
> So, what should your calculation mean and what is the reason to use 
> these particular values?
> 
> 
> TH

"what should your calculation mean?"

It means that the aether speed is relative to matter. The MMX aether was not looking relative to matter, MMX looks for an absolute speed through which the Earth passes. My number is 4.9 meters per second aether speed, relative to the observer on Earth. Protons make gravity, so Earth's protons have a radial direction of the aether flow. Space flows in at 4.9 meters per second and atime flows out for acceleration, radially, not longitudinally.

"what is the reason to use these particular values?"

Gravity is a volume effect. My Gravity Volume Theory uses the volume of protons and neutrons in Earth to equal the volume of a fallen shell, every 5.1ns.


NV/tau = zA/t

N = number of baryons in planet 

V = proton volume = 3.591364 * 10-45 cubic meters 

tau = 5.131534 ns 

z = height fallen = 1/2 a t2 

A = planet area = 4 π R2 

R = planet radius or any larger radius of a sphere centered on a planet 

t = time for object falling 

Experiments show that dropping an object at a radius R from a planet's center will cause it to fall z meters in t seconds. The average acceleration in that experiment is equal to the average velocity (z/t) in the test for the shell falling into the planet divided by the time growing out of the planet. That is gravity: a volume falling inwards divided by a time passing outwards.

S = z/t = height fallen over time = Speed of Space

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382510

On 4/29/16 4/29/16   8:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
>> Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. [...]
> Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do agree about
> your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.

Hopeless. If one were to perform the MMX with rotation in a vertical plane, the 
orientation-dependent variation in strain within the arms will ENORMOUSLY exceed 
any effect from variation in light speed.

When Brillet and Hall performed a directly related experiment, they attributed a 
minuscule residual orientation dependence on their rotation axis being off 
vertical by a few microradians. Off-vertical by 1.57 radians is HOPELESS.


> Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

He observed strain in his instrument, not anything to do with the propagation of 
light. But he did not know enough to mention it.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382516

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 7:04:44 PM UTC-10, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/29/16 4/29/16   8:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> >> Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. [...]
> > Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do agree about
> > your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.
> 
> Hopeless. If one were to perform the MMX with rotation in a vertical plane, the 
> orientation-dependent variation in strain within the arms will ENORMOUSLY exceed 
> any effect from variation in light speed.
> 
> When Brillet and Hall performed a directly related experiment, they attributed a 
> minuscule residual orientation dependence on their rotation axis being off 
> vertical by a few microradians. Off-vertical by 1.57 radians is HOPELESS.
> 
> 
> > Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
> 
> He observed strain in his instrument, not anything to do with the propagation of 
> light. But he did not know enough to mention it.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

I looked at the video of M. Grusenick and he saw 11 interference lines move. He failed to say how fast the aether is for 11 peaks.

I looked at a second video by F. Pearce and he showed only 1 peak moving in the interference. He failed to notice it. He did not mention the action seen in his video, ignoring the facts. F. P. did not say how a single peak is translated into a velocity of aether.

If the vertical speed of aether is 4.9 meters per second, how many peaks will pass in the interferometer?

The aether moves relative to matter, it is not an absolute universal position aether. At the Earth surface it is 4.9, far above Earth the speed is less than that. It is related to a gravitational redshift.

4.9 / 300,000,000 is the shift that might be measured (10^-8)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382520

Am 30.04.2016 08:24, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:

>>>> Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. [...]
>>> Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do agree about
>>> your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.
>>
>> Hopeless. If one were to perform the MMX with rotation in a vertical plane, the
>> orientation-dependent variation in strain within the arms will ENORMOUSLY exceed
>> any effect from variation in light speed.
>>
>> When Brillet and Hall performed a directly related experiment, they attributed a
>> minuscule residual orientation dependence on their rotation axis being off
>> vertical by a few microradians. Off-vertical by 1.57 radians is HOPELESS.
>>
>>
>>> Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>>
>> He observed strain in his instrument, not anything to do with the propagation of
>> light. But he did not know enough to mention it.
>>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> I looked at the video of M. Grusenick and he saw 11 interference lines move. He failed to say how fast the aether is for 11 peaks.
>
> I looked at a second video by F. Pearce and he showed only 1 peak moving in the interference. He failed to notice it. He did not mention the action seen in his video, ignoring the facts. F. P. did not say how a single peak is translated into a velocity of aether.
>
> If the vertical speed of aether is 4.9 meters per second, how many peaks will pass in the interferometer?
>
> The aether moves relative to matter, it is not an absolute universal position aether. At the Earth surface it is 4.9, far above Earth the speed is less than that. It is related to a gravitational redshift.
>
> 4.9 / 300,000,000 is the shift that might be measured (10^-8)


I have also my 'private theory' and it also covered a similar subject. 
But I do not use the term 'aether':

Aether is meant similar to an invisible substance. I personally think, 
that relativity is true, so some sort of 'relativistic aether' is 
needed. I postulate the existence of something like that and call it 
'spacetime'.

This is not really something, but a feature of pointlike elements of our 
universe to have a direction.

There are actually two directions, that add usually to nothing. This 
nothing could split apart, if the directions get an angle.

In case of gravity the verticals generate a pattern like opening 
scissors. This verticals behave somehow similar to elastic rods and 
matter like rings around, what make things drop.

This is a little strange and counter-intuitive concept. But once you 
understand the idea, you see, that the universe actually behaves this way.

My 'book' could be found here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382566

Am 30.04.2016 07:04, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 4/29/16 4/29/16 8:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
>>> Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. [...]
>> Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do
>> agree about
>> your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.
>
> Hopeless. If one were to perform the MMX with rotation in a vertical
> plane, the orientation-dependent variation in strain within the arms
> will ENORMOUSLY exceed any effect from variation in light speed.
>
> When Brillet and Hall performed a directly related experiment, they
> attributed a minuscule residual orientation dependence on their rotation
> axis being off vertical by a few microradians. Off-vertical by 1.57
> radians is HOPELESS.
>
>
>> Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>
> He observed strain in his instrument, not anything to do with the
> propagation of light. But he did not know enough to mention it.
>

If gravity was the reason for deformation of the instrument, this effect 
should be somehow dependent on weight.

We have weight, which pulls on the components and strength of these 
components against deformation.

Now it seems obvious, that deformation is a function of weight on the 
one side and strength on the other.

This should give a distinctive function, if we would use a variety of 
materials for this experiment.

E.g. a thick round plate of strong wood and very small instruments 
mounted on it should not deform upon the weight of the instruments, but 
only on its own weight.

If we would use a steel structure, we could have a very different 
pattern of deformation, since steel is much stronger and weighs more.

Titanium is even stronger and weighs much less. So an apparatus build 
from wood, titanium and steel subsequently should show very different 
patterns of deformation.

If they don't show - on the other hand - such deformation effects, we 
could exclude the reason 'deformation' as cause of the effect, measured 
by Martin Grusenick.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382568

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 4:59:57 PM UTC-10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.04.2016 07:04, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 4/29/16 4/29/16 8:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 29.04.2016 21:11, schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> >>> Please do the experiment upwards, not sideways. [...]
> >> Even if I do not understand the logic behind your calculation, I do
> >> agree about
> >> your wish for a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment.
> >
> > Hopeless. If one were to perform the MMX with rotation in a vertical
> > plane, the orientation-dependent variation in strain within the arms
> > will ENORMOUSLY exceed any effect from variation in light speed.
> >
> > When Brillet and Hall performed a directly related experiment, they
> > attributed a minuscule residual orientation dependence on their rotation
> > axis being off vertical by a few microradians. Off-vertical by 1.57
> > radians is HOPELESS.
> >
> >
> >> Such an experiment was already conducted by Martin Grusenick:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
> >
> > He observed strain in his instrument, not anything to do with the
> > propagation of light. But he did not know enough to mention it.
> >
> 
> If gravity was the reason for deformation of the instrument, this effect 
> should be somehow dependent on weight.
> 
> We have weight, which pulls on the components and strength of these 
> components against deformation.
> 
> Now it seems obvious, that deformation is a function of weight on the 
> one side and strength on the other.
> 
> This should give a distinctive function, if we would use a variety of 
> materials for this experiment.
> 
> E.g. a thick round plate of strong wood and very small instruments 
> mounted on it should not deform upon the weight of the instruments, but 
> only on its own weight.
> 
> If we would use a steel structure, we could have a very different 
> pattern of deformation, since steel is much stronger and weighs more.
> 
> Titanium is even stronger and weighs much less. So an apparatus build 
> from wood, titanium and steel subsequently should show very different 
> patterns of deformation.
> 
> If they don't show - on the other hand - such deformation effects, we 
> could exclude the reason 'deformation' as cause of the effect, measured 
> by Martin Grusenick.
> 
> TH

Yes, an improved apparatus will help. A differential interferometer would have duplicate mountings in both sides, so when it is vertical, the same weight is on both sides. The one side would have the mirrors, lasers, and screen, but also the other side of the optical table would have a second set of lasers, mirrors, and screens. This can use one reading, or differential measurements of space-time orientation. A 30 meter table is needed to get one fringe.

Alan Folmsbee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382569

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> If they don't show - on the other hand - such deformation effects, we 
> could exclude the reason 'deformation' as cause of the effect, measured 
> by Martin Grusenick.
> 
> TH

No, you can't. You are as ignorant as Grusenick. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382607

Am 01.05.2016 06:08, Chrissie Mono,:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> If they don't show - on the other hand - such deformation effects, we
>> could exclude the reason 'deformation' as cause of the effect, measured
>> by Martin Grusenick.
>>
>> TH
>
> No, you can't. You are as ignorant as Grusenick.
>

What is it, that I can't?

Actually I have not conducted this experiment, but tried to interpret 
the results.

There was an effect, but Mr. Roberts claimed, this was caused by 
gravitational deformation of the device.

My reply was, this could be tested by building the apparatus from 
materials with different weight and different strength.

If the effect is different for different materials, than the statement 
is most likely true, that the effect is caused by deformation.

But if the weight has no or very little influence, than the effect is 
not caused by gravity and/or stress.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382627

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 1:54:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> > No, you can't. You are as ignorant as Grusenick.
> >
> 
> What is it, that I can't?
> 

You can;t interpret the experiment you are trying to, you are showing your crass ignorance.


> Actually I have not conducted this experiment, but tried to interpret 
> the results.
> 

Your interpretation is wrong.


> There was an effect, but Mr. Roberts claimed, this was caused by 
> gravitational deformation of the device.
> 

I pointed out the same thing, before Roberts.


> My reply was, this could be tested by building the apparatus from 
> materials with different weight and different strength.
> 

If you do that, the effect will lessen (if you use a stiffer setup_

> If the effect is different for different materials, than the statement 
> is most likely true, that the effect is caused by deformation.
> 

The statement is TRUE, only an ignorant would insist on re-building the device/




> But if the weight has no or very little influence, than the effect is 
> not caused by gravity and/or stress.
> 
> TH

The effect IS caused by stress, Give it up. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382657

Am 02.05.2016 02:35, schrieb Dono,:

>> If the effect is different for different materials, than the statement
>> is most likely true, that the effect is caused by deformation.
>>
>
> The statement is TRUE, only an ignorant would insist on re-building the device/

>
>
>> But if the weight has no or very little influence, than the effect is
>> not caused by gravity and/or stress.
>>
>> TH
>
> The effect IS caused by stress, Give it up.
>

Sure, the device is under stress. But it cannot be very much stress, 
since the apparatus is quite stiff in comparison to the weight of the 
small mirrors and that laser-pointer, which Mr. Grusenick used.

So my intuition tells me, that the effect was not caused by 
gravitational deformation.

But - certainly - my intuition does not qualify as proof.

But how would YOU test the validity of the measurements of Martin Grusenick?

I would rebuild the machine and measure, whether or not weight and/or 
stress has an influence on the effect.

I would use a large, thick and carefully balanced disk and very small 
instruments (laser, mirrors, camera ...)  and turn the disk by a motor.

Since the disk should be balanced, the axis of rotation could be turned, 
if there is another hinge used, to let the disk rotate vertically (or 
horizontal).

This is also operated by a motor.

Now the disks for subsequent experiments are build from different 
materials (but same dimensions), with largely different weight to 
resistance ration.

If the effect measured follows this ration in some way, the effect is 
most likely caused by gravitational deformation.

But if it does not show such a correlation, the effect does not come 
from deformation.

It is also possible to mimic different materials through additional 
weights, which are attached to the disk and add a little stress to it.
If more stress would give more shift of these fringes, then you are 
right.  (If not, you are wrong.)


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382661

On 5/2/2016 2:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Sure, the device is under stress. But it cannot be very much stress,
> since the apparatus is quite stiff in comparison to the weight of the
> small mirrors and that laser-pointer, which Mr. Grusenick used.
>
> So my intuition tells me, that the effect was not caused by
> gravitational deformation.
>
> But - certainly - my intuition does not qualify as proof.
>
> But how would YOU test the validity of the measurements of Martin
> Grusenick?

I may be wrong here, but it is relatively straightforward to do 
engineering-style calculations of the deformations of the apparatus due 
to sagging under its own weight. If you don't know how to do those 
calculations, a good book on Statics/Mechanics will help.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382682

Am 02.05.2016 22:43, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 5/2/2016 2:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Sure, the device is under stress. But it cannot be very much stress,
>> since the apparatus is quite stiff in comparison to the weight of the
>> small mirrors and that laser-pointer, which Mr. Grusenick used.
>>
>> So my intuition tells me, that the effect was not caused by
>> gravitational deformation.
>>
>> But - certainly - my intuition does not qualify as proof.
>>
>> But how would YOU test the validity of the measurements of Martin
>> Grusenick?
>
> I may be wrong here, but it is relatively straightforward to do
> engineering-style calculations of the deformations of the apparatus due
> to sagging under its own weight. If you don't know how to do those
> calculations, a good book on Statics/Mechanics will help.
>
Yes, but that would not answer the question, if rotation of a vertical 
interferometer in the style of Michelson-Morley would cause a measurable 
effect.

If the apparatus of Mr.Gruneick is not rigid enough to withstand 
deformation caused by gravity, the question would be, how to build a 
more rigid instrument, which does not deform if rotated vertically.

I would say, such a device could be build: Since the mirrors and the 
screen are the only parts, that need to be relatively far from the axis 
of rotation, the rotating disk, where the mirrors and the screen are 
mounted on, could be thinner, the further away from the axis. And these 
mirrors have almost no weight.

The inner core could be very thick and build from very rigid material. 
It should also be rotational symmetric, so no net effect is of gravity 
is expected.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382697

On 5/2/2016 10:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Yes, but that would not answer the question, if rotation of a vertical
> interferometer in the style of Michelson-Morley would cause a measurable
> effect.
>
> If the apparatus of Mr.Gruneick is not rigid enough to withstand
> deformation caused by gravity, the question would be, how to build a
> more rigid instrument, which does not deform if rotated vertically.
>
> I would say, such a device could be build:

Since the engineering calculations are straightforward, then please 
proceed to the design of your apparatus that meets that criterion. If 
you don't know how to do the calculation, then your vague arm-waving 
that it is surely possible is only that -- vague arm-waving. Right?

> Since the mirrors and the
> screen are the only parts, that need to be relatively far from the axis
> of rotation, the rotating disk, where the mirrors and the screen are
> mounted on, could be thinner, the further away from the axis. And these
> mirrors have almost no weight.
>
> The inner core could be very thick and build from very rigid material.
> It should also be rotational symmetric, so no net effect is of gravity
> is expected.
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382700

On 5/2/16 5/2/16   10:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> If the apparatus of Mr.Gruneick is not rigid enough to withstand deformation
> caused by gravity, the question would be, how to build a more rigid
> instrument, which does not deform if rotated vertically.

It simply is not possible to build an instrument "which does not deform if
rotated vertically".


> I would say, such a device could be build: Since the mirrors and the screen
> are the only parts, that need to be relatively far from the axis of rotation,
> the rotating disk, where the mirrors and the screen are mounted on, could be
> thinner, the further away from the axis. And these mirrors have almost no
> weight.
>
> The inner core could be very thick and build from very rigid material. It
> should also be rotational symmetric, so no net effect is of gravity is
> expected.

You are INCREDIBLY naive, and completely ignorant of how gravity behaves and how
REAL materials behave under its influence.

Imagine constructing a disk which is very accurately circular when horizontal.
Suspend it vertically from an axle at its center, and it will deform, becoming
longer below the axle and shorter above. Suspend it from the bottom and it will
still deform; there is no possible way to suspend it vertically such that it
does not deform. No matter where you mount (very light) mirrors on it, as the
disk is rotated they will NECESSARILY move relative to the axle by the amounts
of these deformations. Work out the numbers for ANY real material, and at best
you will find they are several wavelengths of visible light. Note this is
independent of the disk's thickness (both mass and strength are proportional to
thickness, leaving the strain independent of thickness).

	Mr. Grusenick did not use very rigid materials at all, and saw
	a variation of 11 fringes.

If you really wanted those mirrors to remain a fixed distance from the center as
the disk is rotated, you could install laser distance gauges to measure the
distances, and servo the mirrors' positions to the lasers. This CAN compensate
for the deformation of the disk as it rotates. But, of course, this approach
would GUARANTEE a null result from a Michelson interferometer constructed with
such mirrors.


>> Have you stopped for a second to think why ALL the professional tests are
>> done by having the setup float HORIZONTALLY?
> I personally think, that it is kind of collective cheating, committed by the
>  community of professionals.

That merely shows that YOU have no understanding of why scientists behave as
they do. YOUR opinion is WORTHLESS, because it is based on your personal
IGNORANCE. The professionals know what you do not: such a test would be
WORTHLESS due to deformation of the instrument.

	Arthur C. Clarke said "Sufficiently advanced technology is
	indistinguishable from magic." You make a similar mistake,
	confusing KNOWLEDGE with some sort of "conspiracy" or
	"collective cheating". How sad.

Professional physicists also know that GR does predict an effect, and more: how
INCREDIBLY SMALL that prediction is. For a perfect Michelson interferometer
with arms a few meters long, rotating vertically in earth's surface gravity, the
predicted fringe shift is FAR too small to be observed, even with modern methods
of observing frequency, which are thousands of times more sensitive. And, as I
pointed out above, such a "perfect" device cannot be constructed in the real world.

This is all well known among scientists and engineers. YOU need to learn A LOT
more about the real world before you can possibly design sensible experiments or
theories.

IGNORANCE is not a good starting point, even though so many people around here,
yourself included, base all their writings on it.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382701

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:16:43 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> 
> If you really wanted those mirrors to remain a fixed distance from the center as
> the disk is rotated, you could install laser distance gauges to measure the
> distances, and servo the mirrors' positions to the lasers.

Aside from being highly impractical, this would not work. You are relying on light speed (laser) in order to measure the distance. But (coordinate) light speed varies in a gravitational well, this is exactly the effect that you are trying to measure by using the "vertical" MMX. So, your experimental setup would be an example of an ill-posed setup. 


> This CAN compensate
> for the deformation of the disk as it rotates. But, of course, this approach
> would GUARANTEE a null result from a Michelson interferometer constructed with
> such mirrors.
> 

You are contradicting yourself in the next paragraph: the effect either exists or it doesn't. See next:
 
> Professional physicists also know that GR does predict an effect, and more: how
> INCREDIBLY SMALL that prediction is. For a perfect Michelson interferometer
> with arms a few meters long, rotating vertically in earth's surface gravity, the
> predicted fringe shift is FAR too small to be observed, even with modern methods
> of observing frequency, which are thousands of times more sensitive. And, as I
> pointed out above, such a "perfect" device cannot be constructed in the real world.
>
 
To make matters even worse, (coordinate) light speed is CONTINUOUSLY variable in such an experiment, with respect to r, \theta and \phi.(Schwarzschild coordinates). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web